MINOR RAJESH Vs. ALTAFBHAI IQBALBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal, under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - Insurance Company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dtd. 13/8/2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.244 of 2005, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,07,000.00 with 9% per annum interest to the claimants, holding Opponents i.e. owner, driver and insurance company liable, jointly and severally.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under:

(3.) Learned advocate for the appellant - claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not properly calculating the amount of compensation. He has submitted that amount awarded is on lower side as the Tribunal has not properly considered the various aspects; like future prospective income of the injured, injuries and disability, etc. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by not considering the compensation properly under the head of future prospective income in view of the disability. He has further submitted that looking to the age of the injured and keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, more income should be added towards prospective income of the injured. The Tribunal has not appreciated the injuries and disability sustained by the injured. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed gross error by not considering the entire medical bills produced on record by the claimant. He has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering. He has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded very meager amount towards transportation, attendant charges and special diet, which should be more as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma versus Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not properly applied multiplier, which should be higher. He has submitted that the compensation is required to be enhanced by modifying the award impugned accordingly.